Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 73

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV

No. CV-21-112

HOLLIE SUTTERFIELD

APPELLANT

V.

NOAH SUTTERFIELD

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered February 16, 2022

APPEAL FROM THE BOONE

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

[NO. 05DR-20-55]

HONORABLE GORDON WEBB, 

JUDGE

REVERSED AND REMANDED

STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

Appellant Hollie Sutterfield appeals the Boone County Circuit Court’s dismissal of 

her petition for contempt against appellee Noah Sutterfield for violation of an order of 

protection. She argues that the circuit court erred in failing to enter a finding of contempt

against Noah for violation of the order of protection and by finding that the relief she sought 

was not an available remedy. She also argues that the contempt was not mooted by a 

judgment granted to her in the parties’ divorce decree. We find merit in Hollie’s argument 

that the circuit court erred in not finding Noah in contempt, and we reverse and remand 

this case to the circuit court.

On February 7, 2020, Hollie, who pregnant at the time and married to Noah, filed a 

petition for an order of protection pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Act, codified at Arkansas 

Code Annotated sections 9-15-101 et seq. (Repl. 2020 & Supp. 2021), on behalf of her three 
2

children and herself against Noah, alleging that he had physically attacked her. An ex parte 

order of protection was issued on February 10 barring Noah from the parties’ residence, 

Hollie’s workplace, the children’s school, and another address in Harrison. Noah was served 

with the order of protection that afternoon while he was at the Boone County Sheriff’s 

Office, where he said he was filing a report regarding property damage at the parties’ 

residence. Hollie did not return to the residence until after she knew Noah had been served; 

when she arrived, she found her and her children’s personal belongings destroyed and the 

residence damaged. A final order of protection, effective for ten years, was entered on April 

13, 2020.

On August 5, Noah pleaded guilty in the Boone County District Court to violating 

the order of protection. He was ordered to pay fines, costs, and fees in the amount of $1120; 

was placed on a year of supervised probation; and was sentenced to thirty days in the Boone 

County Jail, with the jail time suspended. 

On September 3, Hollie filed a motion for contempt against Noah in the protectiveorder case, alleging that he had violated the order of protection by entering her home on 

February 10 and had caused approximately $14,000 in property damages. A hearing on 

Hollie’s motion for contempt was held on October 22. Hollie testified that she had left the 

residence on February 6, had filed her petition for an order of protection on February 7, and 

had not returned to the residence until after she knew Noah had been served with the ex 

parte order of protection on February 10. When she returned, she found piles of her 

personal property smoldering outside the residence after having been burned; her and the 
3

children’s clothing in burn barrels with paint poured on them and burned; screws inserted 

into the doorframe of the home; boards screwed to the floor; all of the windows scratched; 

the furniture destroyed; the top of the washer smashed; the dryer had paint thrown inside 

of it; and the cords to the appliances had been cut. Noah, who appeared pro se, denied that 

he had destroyed the property. After the hearing, the circuit court entered an order on 

October 26 dismissing Hollie’s motion for contempt. In dismissing, the circuit court found:

1. The Petitioner presented testimony and evidence that Respondent violated the 

Order of Protection on February 10, 2020, and that Petitioner suffered 

approximately $14,000 worth of damages to her household appliances and 

property and personal belongings.

2. Following Respondent’s testimony, the Court sua sponte dismisses this case with 

prejudice because the relief sought by Petitioner is not an available remedy under 

the Order of Protection statute found at Ark. Code Ann. § 19-15-101, et. seq., 

and the evidence does not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

Respondent damaged the property in question. While the evidence establishes 

that Respondent pled guilty to violation of a protective order, it does not establish 

he damaged the property, which he denies. 

Hollie first argues that the circuit court erred in not holding Noah in contempt for 

violating the order of protection. We agree. Willful disobedience of a valid order of a court 

is contemptuous behavior. Rye v. Rye, 2021 Ark. App. 286, 625 S.W.3d 761. Before one 

can be held in contempt for violating the court’s order, the order must be definite in its 

terms and clear as to what duties it imposes. Id. Contempt can be civil or criminal. Id. The 

purpose of criminal contempt is to preserve power, vindicate the dignity of the court, and 

punish for disobedience of the court’s order. Id. By comparison, civil-contempt proceedings 

are instituted to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to suits and to compel 
4

obedience to orders made for the benefit of those parties. Id. If contempt is civil in nature, 

which this case is, the standard of review is whether the circuit court’s finding is clearly 

against the preponderance of the evidence. Id.

The purpose of the Domestic Abuse Act is “to provide an adequate mechanism 

whereby the State of Arkansas can protect the general health, welfare, and safety of its citizens 

by intervening when abuse of a member of a household by another member of a household 

occurs or is threatened to occur, thus preventing further violence.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-

101. The Domestic Abuse Act provides for contempt proceedings:

When a petitioner or any law enforcement officer files an affidavit with a 

circuit court that has issued an order of protection under the provisions of this 

chapter alleging that the respondent or person restrained has violated the order, the 

court may issue an order to the respondent or person restrained requiring that person 

to appear and show cause why he or she should not be found in contempt. 

Act 266 of 1991, § 10 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-210).

We hold that the circuit court’s failure to hold Noah in contempt was clearly against 

the preponderance of the evidence. The order of dismissal acknowledged that while the 

evidence established Noah had pleaded guilty to violation of a protective order, it did not 

establish he was the person who damaged the property. However, the protective order was 

issued to protect Hollie and her children from domestic abuse by Noah, and it specifically 

forbade Noah from being at the parties’ residence. Noah pleaded guilty in district court to 

violating the February 10 protective order, and the conviction was an exhibit in the contempt 

proceedings. Because the evidence clearly proved Noah violated the protective order, the 
5

circuit court’s refusal to hold him in contempt was clearly against the preponderance of the 

evidence, and we reverse and remand.

Hollie next argues that remedial fines were an appropriate remedy for contempt 

actions, and the circuit court erred in ruling they were not an available remedy and in 

dismissing her contempt petition. She further notes that while this appeal was pending, a 

divorce decree was filed on February 4, 2021, and included a judgment against Noah for 

$14,703 for damages to her household furnishings and personal property. While Hollie 

correctly notes that the divorce proceedings are not part of this record and cannot be 

considered in this appeal, she nevertheless argues that the judgment awarded in the divorce 

decree does not make the issues in this case moot because the monetary judgment in the 

decree does not amount to a finding of contempt for violating the order of protection. 

Because we are reversing and remanding on Hollie’s first point of appeal, we decline to 

address these issues because sanctions for contempt are more properly addressed by the 

circuit court on remand.

Reversed and remanded.

VIRDEN and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

Mary Goff, Legal Aid of Arkansas, for appellant.

One brief only.